Delhi HC Gives PNB One More Chance to Lead Evidence on Its Claimed Mortgage Over Decreed Property, Despite Its Negligence

Mrs. Simmi Dhawan’s execution petition sought enforcement of a 7 May 2019 decree for specific performance and possession of property at B-24, Kailash Colony.

Punjab National Bank, respondent No. 6 in the execution proceedings, claimed a mortgage interest in the property and had filed an evidence affidavit.

On 18 February 2026, the Joint Registrar directed respondents Nos. 6–10 to conclude their evidence, warning that their evidence would otherwise be closed. When none appeared on 11 March 2026, their right to lead evidence was closed.

The Bank filed a chamber appeal under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, challenging that order.

Its application to condone 67 days’ delay in filing the appeal was also before the Court.

The appeal was brought under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

The Court applied its discretion to condone delay and to review the order closing evidence.

The Court accepted that the Bank had been “extremely negligent” in pursuing the matter, particularly given the prior direction to conclude its evidence and its non-appearance on the date evidence was closed.

However, the Bank claimed a mortgage interest in the property and had already filed an evidence affidavit. In those circumstances, the Court considered it inappropriate to prevent the Bank from presenting its case before the Joint Registrar.

For the same stated reasons in its application, the Court condoned the filing delay, subject to costs.

It set aside the 11 March 2026 order closing the Bank’s right to lead evidence and directed the Joint Registrar to grant the Bank one further opportunity to do so.

The parties were directed to appear before the Joint Registrar on 4 November 2026.